Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights
All treaties and agreements

SoutheastTreaty

Treaty of Fort Gibson with the Seminole, 1833

In 1833 at Fort Gibson Seminole delegates approved western land on the Canadian River; the Seminole Nation Museum says chiefs later disputed it.

Signed
March 28, 1833
Senate
Ratified

What happened

On March 28, 1833, commissioners Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth and John F. Schermerhorn signed a treaty at Fort Gibson for the United States with delegates of the Seminole. The preamble recites the Payne's Landing agreement of May 9, 1832. In it the Seminole had relinquished their Florida lands and agreed to emigrate to the Creek country, to be "received as a constituent part of the Creek nation." That agreement was to bind both sides only if a Seminole delegation, sent at United States expense, was satisfied with the land.

The preamble says the delegation had since examined the land designated for them and "have expressed themselves satisfied with the same," in a letter of March 1833. The commissioners then assigned the Seminole "for their separate future residence, forever" a tract between the Canadian River and its north fork. It extended west to the forks of Little River, but no more than twenty-five miles west of the mouth of Little River.

The delegates "declare themselves well satisfied with the location" and agreed that their nation would begin removal "as soon as the Government will make arrangements for their emigration, satisfactory to the Seminole nation." They asked that their agent, Major Phagan, supervise it.

The Seminole Nation Museum says the delegation signed what they believed to be a statement that the land was suitable. It says many chiefs later stated they had not committed to moving their people and were coerced into signing. It says the refusal of most Seminoles to leave led to the Second Seminole War.

Good to know. The treaty records the delegates' satisfaction; the Seminole Nation Museum's account of coercion is a secondhand summary.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Supported by the sources below; some details rest on one source.

  1. well satisfied with the location provided for them by the CommissionersTribal Treaties Database (OSU)
  2. Many of the chiefs stated that they had not committed to moving their people to the new territoryThe Seminole Wars (Seminole Nation Museum)
  3. The refusal of most Seminoles to abandon the reservation north of Lake OkeechobeeThe Seminole Wars (Seminole Nation Museum)

Research notes. The treaty text records the delegates' satisfaction; the museum's account of coercion is a local museum summary and is not a first-hand source. The treaty gives no acreage or payment. The museum page does not name Fort Gibson.

What happened next

Everything the record holds about this land and this treaty, in order: what earlier agreements said, what this one did, and what the United States, the courts and the nations did afterwards.

  1. 1830

    Law

    Indian Removal Act

    The Indian Removal Act of 1830 let the President swap eastern tribal lands for districts west of the Mississippi River.

  2. 1832

    Promise broken

    Seminole removal: Payne's Landing (1832), Fort Gibson (1833) and the Second Seminole War

    Seminole chiefs agreed at Payne's Landing in 1832 to move west if the land suited them; an 1833 acceptance was later disputed.

  3. 1833

    This treaty

    Signed

    In 1833 at Fort Gibson Seminole delegates approved western land on the Canadian River; the Seminole Nation Museum says chiefs later disputed it.

  4. 1942

    In court

    Seminole Nation v. United States

    In 1942 the Supreme Court said the United States must be judged by "the most exacting fiduciary standards" when it handles Indian treaty money.

The law behind it

The legal ideas behind the decisions, and related records without a date. Court cases and laws with a date are in what happened next, above.

  • Legal doctrine

    claims

    The 1946 Indian Claims Commission let tribes press land and treaty claims against the United States for money, as in the Sioux case.

  • Legal doctrine

    trust doctrine

    The 1831 'ward and guardian' description became a trust relationship that courts enforce for damages mainly where a statute or regulation creates the duty.

Who is doing the work today

The nations connected to this treaty come first, then groups returning land and defending treaty rights. Support goes directly to them.

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Sources

  1. digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/146928287reference work
Research notes

Kappler page from Kappler index (OSU).

Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.